A writ petition is generally premature if it challenges a mere show cause notice or charge-sheet without a final order imposing punishment.

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief/s:

“a) Call for records which ultimately resulted in passing of the impugned orders.

b) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.06.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent made in No.SAKE/141/MDS/2025 vide Annexure-

G.

c) Pass such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Computer Teacher at Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School, Huliyakatte, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. He was thereafter deputed to the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society as a Clerk. Subsequently, by order dated 19.07.2019, his post was merged as Office Superintendent in the 2nd respondent-Society.

3. While working as Superintendent, respondent No.1 received an anonymous complaint containing allegations against the petitioner. The said complaint was forwarded to respondent No.2 with a direction to hold an enquiry and furnish an opinion. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure– D). The petitioner filed a detailed reply (Annexure–E) denying all allegations. After enquiry, respondent No.2 submitted a report dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure–F) holding that the allegations were baseless and that the complaint lacked particulars of the complainant.

Accordingly, the matter was closed.

4. However, based on a subsequent news item telecasted on “Freedom TV” and certain publications in print media alleging misappropriation of funds in Murarji Desai Residential Schools, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 (Annexure–G) appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended inter alia that:

(i) The complaint was anonymous and under Government Circulars dated 03.10.2019 and 05.03.2021 (Annexures–H & K), no enquiry can be initiated on anonymous complaints.

(ii) Respondent No.2, after detailed enquiry, has closed the complaint as baseless. Hence, reopening the issue after two years is unwarranted.

The newspaper and television reports did not name the petitioner specifically. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to law and amounts to harassment.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner cannot be an aggrieved party at this stage since only an Enquiry Officer is appointed. Charges are yet to be framed and the petitioner will be given due opportunity. The order impugned is only a procedural step and not a finding of guilt.

7. Learned AGA for the State submitted that the writ petition is premature. The petitioner can raise his defence before the Enquiry Officer after charges are framed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana , (2006) 12 SCC 28 .

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The petitioner is working as an Office Superintendent in the second respondent Society. The first respondent received an anonymous complaint against the petitioner. The first respondent written a letter, dated 25.10.2023 vide Annexure-C, seeking an independent opinion with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner from second respondent. In turn, the second respondent vide Annexure-D dated 27.10.2023 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking an explanation.

8. The allegation against the petitioner is that, while he was working as an Office Superintendent, when he was clearing the bill in respect of the work order, he was demanding 1.5% to 3% commission from the Contractors and he was also demanding the